William Truitt wrote: > You ask: Why does the inharmonicity in the low bass have to be higher than > the lowest point of the curve? (Which is usually represented at the bass > tenor break). I don't know. That is something we generally see in the > scaling programs, and I have never seen an explaination of why that must be > so. Nor do I know what limits there are that would necessarily make it so. > But since you ask the question, what kind of inharmonicity curve do you > desire, and how much of it is achievable? Since scaling is always a set of > trade-offs, where do your priorities fall and in what order? From what I've seen, the high inharmonicity in the low bass comes from the structural steel dimensioned cores. Get the core sizes down, and the inharmonicity goes down too. As I said, the near universal inclination seems to be to consider inharmonicity first, but other than how the curve connects at the transitions, I don't pay it much attention at all. My priorities are tension first, and Z. Then avoiding low break% in the low tenor and too high break% in the high bass (if I get to change the bridges and have a choice), with inharmonicity, as I said, going along for the ride. I couldn't tell you what the inharmonicity numbers are where, because I don't pay them any attention. I do know that more reasonably sized core wires, tensions, and break% produce a much nicer bass than was typically originally there. These parameters aren't chosen to make the inharmonicity curve go anywhere in particular, they are chosen to improve the partials mix and sound, and the lower inharmonicity is the incidental result. > As for your concept alert, I would say this: Smoothing and blending the > curves of an existing scale does improve it, and makes it better at what it > already is. The way it was worded, it read for me that you wanted to avoid improving the scale. <G> Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC